Irony of Falsifiability--Final Report
BY: EL JO Section 6 Extra Credit
We may think that we know the scientific method. After all, it was ingrained into our brains. 
I'm sure we have all seen some version of this image. For the scientific method to work, we must have an observation/question first. For example, why is the sky blue? From there, we garner research which leads to a hypothesis, or an educated prediction. We create experiments from it and collect the data from such. Finally, we come to our conclusion. But do we really know what the scientific method entails? I mean, the steps are pretty easy to remember, but do we remember how it got there? Do we remember what it actually means to have a hypothesis?
WHAT IS FALSIFIABILITY?
Falsifiability is the ability for any given hypothesis to have the ability to be proven false. In science (not in our primary school years), students are taught that every hypothesis must have the ability to be proven false. In fact, no hypothesis out there in the world has been considered "true." We simply "fail to reject" the evidence. In fact, we have numerous mathematical equations that we use to either "fail to reject" or outright "reject" the evidence such as this one:
But how did we get there? How did we get to falsifiability?
KARL POPPER (1902-1994)
In one of our 4 texts, we mentioned Karl Popper. He was a scientist as well as a philosopher. Popper was willing to come up with the idea of falsifiability. Popper stated that for every single piece of evidence out there, there can be multiple ways to counter-act the evidence. Take for example a fossil. I can research this fossil for years and come up with an incredible discovery. It's a fossil from the Ice Age! But how do you know that's true? Sure, you could always test it yourself, but who's to say I didn't tamper with the fossil so that it gave me what I wanted? In fact, who's to say that the rock is actually a fossil? It could be fake. (For more info about this certain theory, click here: https://explorable.com/falsifiability)
For Popper, science must be able to be falsified in this way. All scientific theories must not be set in stone. Thinking about this aspect of science makes it seem daunting at first, but it makes sense. Think about surgery. Back in the day, no one questioned the logistics of not properly sanitizing the area or the surgeon. This increased the chances of infection, and, surely enough, patients died of infection shortly after surgery. Had they properly sanitized the area, perhaps the patients would not have died. They would have survived and lived a long and happy life. But why did surgeons not sanitize their surroundings? Well, it's because the scientific theory back then didn't really exist. Everyone assumed that not sanitizing the area was alright. No one questioned the system, and no one exactly wanted to question the doctor. But Karl Popper believed that we had to question the system.
Popper fought for any hypothesis to be able to be fought. We can sit here all day and fight about the Flat Earth Theory. Or we can sit here all day and argue about how life is nothing but a dream we have created in our own heads. We can even sit here and argue about vaccinations. In any case, every scientific breakthrough has been met with some sort of backlash, and that is exactly what Popper wanted. By questioning every breakthrough, we are given the chance to change the system. It was by questioning whether we sanitizing was a good thing that we found out about sanitizing every single thing. We changed and practically eradicated certain diseases through vaccinations. For Popper, this cynical view of every scientific breakthrough was a success. (For more info, click here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/)
SO, WHAT'S THE IRONY?
You may be wondering what the ironic part of this is. Well, think about everything you have ever learned. Now question it. If you get an answer, doubt that as well and continue to question it. You will find that you never will be able to get a conclusion if you continue to question every single answer. However, science is supposed to give you answers. I mean, if you ask: why is the sky blue? You will probably get an answer that is quite similar to this: because of the way light hits the atmosphere, and blue waves are more widespread. (Here's a cool link that simplifies it: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/)
But what if you question that idea? What if you question the knowledge? We can't deny it if you say the sky is red, purple, or even indigo. But we also cannot accept that the sky is nothing other than a shade of blue. Well, then, science has failed to give us a solid answer. It's ironic in that we create our own hypothesis and experiments in order to have solid answers, but by creating more answers, we create more questions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Karl Popper was both a man of science and philosophy. His theory of falsifiability will remain with us forever. We will always question our experiments, and we must always be willing to change them. If we simply take everything as fact and not as a potential false fact, we may always be living in a Fantasyworld, where everything is true and nothing is wrong.
QUIZ
1. Who created the theory of falsifiability?
2. Why is the sky blue?
3. What did Popper fight for?
4. What happens if we simply accept scientific conclusions as facts?
4. What year was Popper born, and what year did he pass?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Do you agree with the idea that falsifiability has a sense of irony in it? Why or why not?
2. Are there any theories out there in the world that you believe should not be thrown into the falsifiability test?
3. Do you think that if we accept scientific conclusions as facts, our world could be a different place? How would it be different? Better? Worse?
4. Do you apply this theory in your daily lives? How?
5. Why do you think this theory lives on today?
"His theory of falsifiability will remain with us forever"-is that statement falsifiable? Popper would insist that it must be, to be constructively believable and in the spirit of empirical inquiry. And he'd be right, wouldn't he?
ReplyDelete